Did you ever wonder is there a solution for uneven & sometimes marred point of a bullet?Looks like here it is... Bullet Pointing Die Systems it is kinda pricy & before placing my order I would like to hear from you guys... http://www.bullettipping.com/

Yes I have read about these but don't have one yet. Will someday though that's for sure. Accurateshooter says they pay off for 1000y shooters. Gives you higher BC too. I would recommend them if you shoot past 500 y

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit."Aristotle

I looked over the available equipment for .311 and there is none. They will most like make a custom insert for you upon request. It's sad they don't make more 303 caliber bullets and re loading tools. I have had ideas on Wildcats and case efficiency improvements but it comes down to money. The Mosin cartridge case can be improved so much. Get rid of the taper and straight case it. Get rid of the .311 projectile and go for a .308 -- this in turn requires a custom cut reamer and a custom reloading die. But as with any of the tools needed to load munitions cost more then some people can afford.

Shepard wrote:I looked over the available equipment for .311 and there is none. They will most like make a custom insert for you upon request. It's sad they don't make more 303 caliber bullets and re loading tools. I have had ideas on Wildcats and case efficiency improvements but it comes down to money. The Mosin cartridge case can be improved so much. Get rid of the taper and straight case it. Get rid of the .311 projectile and go for a .308 -- this in turn requires a custom cut reamer and a custom reloading die. But as with any of the tools needed to load munitions cost more then some people can afford.

Removing the taper of the 7.62x54r would no affect efficiency. In the design process of Desh I have done a lot of research on this.

In terms of mechanical / thermal efficiency with the firearm as a heat engine, it's a relatively straightforward matter of the interrelationship of case capacity / charge weight, calibre, and maximum allowed chamber pressure with the emphasis on the first two factors.

Small cartridges are always more efficient in these terms than larger models of the same calibre. The easiest way of comparing designs is to take the muzzle energy in ft/lbs and divide that by the charge weight to get an energy per grain of powder figure. On that basis, the .22 Short and Long Rifle are likely the most efficient models in general use with around 1.5gn or powder in a standard velocity LR producing 1,050 fps with a 40gn bullet, or 98 ft/lb = ~ 65 ft/b per gn. Increase the cartridge to .223 Rem size, the same bullet/bore dia give or take a thou' and it takes maybe 25gn powder to get a 55gn bullet to 3,250 fps (1,290 ft/lb) the equivalent efficiency figure being 51 ft/lb per grain weight of propellant charge, a 22% efficiency reduction compared to the rimfire despite running at much higher chamber pressures.

From .223 Rem upwards in case capacity and charge weight, things can only get worse as we move into over bore-capacity territory, the .223WSSM using 45-50gn to get the additional 500 fps over the 223 with a 55gn bullet. 45.7gn IMR-4350 gives a 55gn bullet 3,738 fps to pick a load at random from the Berger Reloading Manual, that's 37 ft/lb per grain of propellant, a 43% efficiency reduction on .22LR and 27% down on the .223 Rem figure.

That could be improved by increasing barrel length as the more powder being burned, the longer the barrel needed to obtain the optimum velocity. With a standard velocity .22LR, 12-15 inches of barrel are all that's needed while the .223WSSM would need an impractically long barrel to get there, maybe 10 ft or so.

Keep the case size, pressure and powder charge weight constant while varying bore size changes the thermal efficiency increasing the bore diameter normally increasing its value. So, compare the .243WSSM to its .223 smaller sibling and a 90gn bullet exits the muzzle at 3,137 fps, 1,967 ft/lb ME, using 44.0gn IMR-4350 again quoting the Berger manual and both using 24-inch test barrels. That's 44.7 ft/lb per grain of powder.

If you take the .308 Win cartridge 'family' sharing the same case and using not dissimilar amounts of powder, the least efficient is the .243 Win and the most .338 Federal and .358 Win. So, why do far more people use the 6mm model than the large bores? Because there's more to shooting than crude ME values, the smaller calibres being superior in external ballistics for anybody other than short-range brush hunters. You don't see many .338 Fed rifles in 1,000 yard F-Class matches either, fine cartridge though it is, and with some superb long-range match bullets available too.

What happens to the 'lost' energy in the larger cased cartridges? More Joules of propellant energy are used in producing noise, muzzle blast, recoil, and most of all wasted heat.

The other issue that exercises shooters' minds and makes for many a range-house discussion is of course, case shape with many arguing that short, fat PPC type designs with minimal body taper and sharp-angle shoulders are inherently 'more efficient' than those that are long, skinny and heavily tapered. For those inclined to believe in this argument, compare the .300 WSM to the ancient .300 H&H Magnum a design that lacks a single redeeming feature in this lexicon. As luck would have it, they have near identical case capacities and are both rated at 65,000 psi PMax, and of course are identical calibre and shoot the same bullets. Look at a bunch of handloading manuals or run loads through QuickLOAD and you won't see a penny's worth of difference in the MVs they produce for any given bullet over the same powder type if the barrel length is also the same.

That's not to say that there are no advantages in having a short powder column in a fat case with sharp shoulders to do with ignition consistency and burn pattern, ability to use a short action etc, but increased efficiency doesn't figure except in one relatively marginal way. The .300 WSM has around an extra half inch of 'effective barrel length' in any overall length as its short case sees the throat and leade that amount closer to the bolt-face.

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit."Aristotle

Ackley Improved cartridge systems have been around for years. The most prominent feature is the enlarged taperless case and the square case shoulder. He changed most tapered case calibers in to more efficient higher velocity rounds. The straight cased rounds he enlarged the top shoulder therefore increasing case volume.

Shepard wrote:I looked over the available equipment for .311 and there is none. They will most like make a custom insert for you upon request. It's sad they don't make more 303 caliber bullets and re loading tools. I have had ideas on Wildcats and case efficiency improvements but it comes down to money. The Mosin cartridge case can be improved so much. Get rid of the taper and straight case it. Get rid of the .311 projectile and go for a .308 -- this in turn requires a custom cut reamer and a custom reloading die. But as with any of the tools needed to load munitions cost more then some people can afford.

Removing the taper of the 7.62x54r would no affect efficiency. In the design process of Desh I have done a lot of research on this.

In terms of mechanical / thermal efficiency with the firearm as a heat engine, it's a relatively straightforward matter of the interrelationship of case capacity / charge weight, calibre, and maximum allowed chamber pressure with the emphasis on the first two factors.

Small cartridges are always more efficient in these terms than larger models of the same calibre. The easiest way of comparing designs is to take the muzzle energy in ft/lbs and divide that by the charge weight to get an energy per grain of powder figure. On that basis, the .22 Short and Long Rifle are likely the most efficient models in general use with around 1.5gn or powder in a standard velocity LR producing 1,050 fps with a 40gn bullet, or 98 ft/lb = ~ 65 ft/b per gn. Increase the cartridge to .223 Rem size, the same bullet/bore dia give or take a thou' and it takes maybe 25gn powder to get a 55gn bullet to 3,250 fps (1,290 ft/lb) the equivalent efficiency figure being 51 ft/lb per grain weight of propellant charge, a 22% efficiency reduction compared to the rimfire despite running at much higher chamber pressures.

From .223 Rem upwards in case capacity and charge weight, things can only get worse as we move into over bore-capacity territory, the .223WSSM using 45-50gn to get the additional 500 fps over the 223 with a 55gn bullet. 45.7gn IMR-4350 gives a 55gn bullet 3,738 fps to pick a load at random from the Berger Reloading Manual, that's 37 ft/lb per grain of propellant, a 43% efficiency reduction on .22LR and 27% down on the .223 Rem figure.

That could be improved by increasing barrel length as the more powder being burned, the longer the barrel needed to obtain the optimum velocity. With a standard velocity .22LR, 12-15 inches of barrel are all that's needed while the .223WSSM would need an impractically long barrel to get there, maybe 10 ft or so.

Keep the case size, pressure and powder charge weight constant while varying bore size changes the thermal efficiency increasing the bore diameter normally increasing its value. So, compare the .243WSSM to its .223 smaller sibling and a 90gn bullet exits the muzzle at 3,137 fps, 1,967 ft/lb ME, using 44.0gn IMR-4350 again quoting the Berger manual and both using 24-inch test barrels. That's 44.7 ft/lb per grain of powder.

If you take the .308 Win cartridge 'family' sharing the same case and using not dissimilar amounts of powder, the least efficient is the .243 Win and the most .338 Federal and .358 Win. So, why do far more people use the 6mm model than the large bores? Because there's more to shooting than crude ME values, the smaller calibres being superior in external ballistics for anybody other than short-range brush hunters. You don't see many .338 Fed rifles in 1,000 yard F-Class matches either, fine cartridge though it is, and with some superb long-range match bullets available too.

What happens to the 'lost' energy in the larger cased cartridges? More Joules of propellant energy are used in producing noise, muzzle blast, recoil, and most of all wasted heat.

The other issue that exercises shooters' minds and makes for many a range-house discussion is of course, case shape with many arguing that short, fat PPC type designs with minimal body taper and sharp-angle shoulders are inherently 'more efficient' than those that are long, skinny and heavily tapered. For those inclined to believe in this argument, compare the .300 WSM to the ancient .300 H&H Magnum a design that lacks a single redeeming feature in this lexicon. As luck would have it, they have near identical case capacities and are both rated at 65,000 psi PMax, and of course are identical calibre and shoot the same bullets. Look at a bunch of handloading manuals or run loads through QuickLOAD and you won't see a penny's worth of difference in the MVs they produce for any given bullet over the same powder type if the barrel length is also the same.

That's not to say that there are no advantages in having a short powder column in a fat case with sharp shoulders to do with ignition consistency and burn pattern, ability to use a short action etc, but increased efficiency doesn't figure except in one relatively marginal way. The .300 WSM has around an extra half inch of 'effective barrel length' in any overall length as its short case sees the throat and leade that amount closer to the bolt-face.